Woman Jailed for Purchasing Abortion Pills for Teen Daughter

Hm, so in my hypothetical, would the First Amendment be violating my rights?

You mean you aren't in favor of such a measure? Who knows, it might make it up to the supreme court and they could overturn Roe v. Wade.

Neither are assault-rifles or RPGs.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[2]​

Even the literal minded should be able to infer a connection between "privacy" and "secure in their persons." The latter isn't talking about hernia belts.

We hold medical practitioners to task all the time for what they say in "private." There would be all sorts of legal and licensing implications if, for instance, my Doctor told me he could cure cancer by having his patients eat arsenic. We don't let Doctors amputate healthy limbs for those people with BIID.

Abortions, legal, "safe" abortions can be dangerous. I've dealt with more than a few women that have been rendered infertile by them. Like any other procedure, it is the duty of the practitioner to make their patient aware of potential complications. Full stop.

Agreed to a point. The information exists. HIPAA determines who has access to that information even down to the most trivial levels. I'm one of the Chaplains at our local hospital. I could be fired just for misplacing, and revealing the patient census information I use for making rounds. When dealing with a death, I can't even say "Mr. Smith is in here." I have to say, "The Smith family may come back here."

It's too bad the mom didn't shoot her daughter in the stomach to abort the baby because going to an abortion clinic was too inconvenient. Watching the smoke come out of the ears of the Moonbat Brigade over what to think would be like watching Kirk reason with an "omnipotent" computer.

So given that this need exists for all procedures, is there any other procedure where you're forced to accept a third party's advice before you and your doctor are allowed to proceed?

It may well vary from state to state. I honestly don't know everyone's procedures. But, after talking with women that have actually had abortions, the third party isn't giving advice. The third party simply wants to make sure the practitioner is making the patient aware of their options and potential complications, things the practitioner should be doing anyway but often don't.

That is one of the reasons medication errors are taken so seriously in hospitals. A small overdose of Ciclosporin can easily lead to liver and kidney failure. Don't you think that is something a patient should be told before getting it? They're not. They consent to the larger procedure and it's just one part of the protocol.

I actually agree with your view of the problem very strongly -- but I'm not sure that mandating third party intervention is the right solution. In the case of abortion, we are already told by many that that third party is misinforming patients. Whether they're right or not, we could only find out by introducing an obligatory fourth party...

How many procedures have you undergone, Elwood, that required a third party give you advice that your trusted quack was unable to impart? Why does abortion require special treatment?

I think we're talking past each other. Again, I don't claim to know every state's procedure and laws. But, my understanding is that the third party has no physical interaction with the patient. The third party simply got the legislature to require the practitioner to disclose the patient's options and potential complications.

Now, if the third party is requiring the practitioner to give out anything other than objective fact, well, that is another issue entirely. But, I certainly don't see a problem with requiring a practitioner to say, "Before we do this, you need to be aware of options A, B, & C that are in-line with current medical science and medical ethic's best practices. You also need to know that X, Y, & Z could or is likely to happen if we do this." That is informed consent and I'm having a hard time seeing the opposition to that.

A third party is requiring a 24 hour cool off period. The third party is requiring a script that the physician uses to advise their patient. The advice is formulated by a legislative body and not peer reviewed medicine. Do you value your congressman's advice when you have your gallbladder removed? How is an abortion different?

No. The third party got the Board of Medicine via the State Legislature to require the practitioner to adhere to a 24-hour period. The difference isn't just semantic.

So long as the script is medically sound both scientifically and ethically, I've got no problem with it. Can you show me where one of these scripts violates that?

The rest is histrionics. The government, through laws and the regulations of the Board of Medicine, Board of Nursing, and the National Registry of Paramedics govern and dictate every aspect of how your practitioners interact with you down to what they can and cannot say to you. That ship sailed when the first State Medical Board was created in Massachusetts in 1861.

This is the part I can't figure out. Why no legislative statement on any other medical procedures? As for the script, I personally am not a recognized medical expert. Like the typical legislator, I can't give an informed opinion on the script's validity. I'd prefer such things be left in the hands of state boards of health.

Here's one:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0806742

You tell us.

Specific medical procedures are not subject to legislation (with the notable exception of abortion). Can you provide any examples?

I did a quick google, Virginia has a usable index of their medical legislation. Scanning the medical practice laws, there are lots on licensing, confidentiality, vitamins and acupuncture. Nothing on gallbladder removal.

Here's what they have on patient communication (italics are mine):

18VAC85-20-28. Practitioner-patient communication; termination of relationship.

A. Communication with patients.


1. Except as provided in § 32.1-127.1:03 F of the Code of Virginia, a practitioner shall accurately inform a patient or his legally authorized representative of his medical diagnoses, prognosis and prescribed treatment or plan of care. A practitioner shall not deliberately make a false or misleading statement regarding the practitioner’s skill or the efficacy or value of a medication, treatment, or procedure prescribed or directed by the practitioner in the treatment of any disease or condition.


2. A practitioner shall present information relating to the patient’s care to a patient or his legally authorized representative in understandable terms and encourage participation in the decisions regarding the patient’s care.


3. Before surgery or any invasive procedure is performed, informed consent shall be obtained from the patient in accordance with the policies of the health care entity. Practitioners shall inform patients of the risks, benefits, and alternatives of the recommended surgery or invasive procedure that a reasonably prudent practitioner in similar practice in Virginia would tell a patient.


a. In the instance of a minor or a patient who is incapable of making an informed decision on his own behalf or is incapable of communicating such a decision due to a physical or mental disorder, the legally authorized person available to give consent shall be informed and the consent documented.


b. An exception to the requirement for consent prior to performance of surgery or an invasive procedure may be made in an emergency situation when a delay in obtaining consent would likely result in imminent harm to the patient.


c. For the purposes of this provision, “invasive procedure” shall mean any diagnostic or therapeutic procedure performed on a patient that is not part of routine, general care and for which the usual practice within the health care entity is to document specific informed consent from the patient or surrogate decision-maker prior to proceeding.


4. Practitioners shall adhere to requirements of § 32.1-162.18 of the Code of Virginia for obtaining informed consent from patients prior to involving them as subjects in human research, with the exception of retrospective chart reviews.


B. Termination of the practitioner/patient relationship.


1. The practitioner or the patient may terminate the relationship. In either case, the practitioner shall make a copy of the patient record available, except in situations where denial of access is allowed by law.


2. Except as provided in § 54.1-2962.2 of the Code of Virginia, a practitioner shall not terminate the relationship or make his services unavailable without documented notice to the patient that allows for a reasonable time to obtain the services of another practitioner.

18VAC85-20-29. Practitioner responsibility.
A. A practitioner shall not:

1. Knowingly allow subordinates to jeopardize patient safety or provide patient care outside of the subordinate’s scope of practice or area of responsibility. Practitioners shall delegate patient care only to subordinates who are properly trained and supervised;


2. Engage in an egregious pattern of disruptive behavior or interaction in a health care setting that interferes with patient care or could reasonably be expected to adversely impact the quality of care rendered to a patient;


3. Exploit the practitioner/patient relationship for personal gain.


B. Advocating for patient safety or improvement in patient care within a health care entity shall not constitute disruptive behavior provided the practitioner does not engage in behavior prohibited in A 2 of this section.

18VAC85-20-30. Advertising ethics.
A. Any statement specifying a fee, whether standard, discounted or free, for professional services which does not include the cost of all related procedures, services and products which, to a substantial likelihood, will be necessary for the completion of the advertised service as it would be understood by an ordinarily prudent person shall be deemed to be deceptive or misleading, or both. Where reasonable disclosure of all relevant variables and considerations is made, a statement of a range of prices for specifically described services shall not be deemed to be deceptive or misleading.


B. Advertising a discounted or free service, examination, or treatment and charging for any additional service, examination, or treatment which is performed as a result of and within 72 hours of the initial office visit in response to such advertisement is unprofessional conduct unless such professional services rendered are as a result of a bona fide emergency. This provision may not be waived by agreement of the patient and the practitioner.


C. Advertisements of discounts shall disclose the full fee that has been discounted. The practitioner shall maintain documented evidence to substantiate the discounted fees and shall make such information available to a consumer upon request.


D. A licensee shall disclose the complete name of the specialty board which conferred the certification when using or authorizing the use of the term “board certified” or any similar words or phrase calculated to convey the same meaning in any advertising for his practice.


E. A licensee of the board shall not advertise information which is false, misleading, or deceptive. For an advertisement for a single practitioner, it shall be presumed that the practitioner is responsible and accountable for the validity and truthfulness of its content. For an advertisement for a practice in which there is more than one practitioner, the name of the practitioner or practitioners responsible and accountable for the content of the advertisement shall be documented and maintained by the practice for at least two years.


F. Documentation, scientific and otherwise, supporting claims made in an advertisement shall be maintained and available for the board’s review for at least two years.​

Are you really suggesting that the people that sit on the various licensing and regulations boards aren't agents of the government? Who appoints them? Who controls their budget? Do you not understand how the system works or do you not understand how insider politics works?

In the State of Alabama, all members of the licensing and regulating boards are appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Legislature. The Legislature has direct control over the budgets.

​

Of course the people practicing are licensed and have to pass board examinations specific to the state where they practice. I want a licensed surgeon to remove my gallbladder, not some charlatan.

Show me where the regulation boards restrict or govern gallbladder removal. Show me the regulations on gallbladder removal. Show me where patient communications are scripted for gallbladder removal.

Elwood, if it was written by the state board of medicine I doubt it would be full of lies and half truthes... Like it actually is right now. Supporters of this, like yourself, are unable to square what you claim you want with rhe ateaming pile of bull shit which you folks actually delivered.

This is because the excuses used to justifu these laws are at odds with the actual goals of the anti choice groups who support and write these laws. Their goal is to ban abortion or failing that to make the laws so restrictive women defacto can't legally get one. Thus the lies and misinformation

No. I won't indulge you by chasing down this tangent. I'm still waiting on you to show me how this script violates sound medical science and medical ethics best practices.

Edit: Or, better yet, no one's mind is going to be changed on this topic so we could agree to drop it. Neither you nor I are going to come up with something that's going to change the other's mind, so aside from resolving boredom between tasks at work, this is a waste of time.

@Elwood, see Post #224.

Except that "disclose" has a tendency to mean "lie about."

Which @Elwood might understand if he read the article from the NEJM.

Why hasn't anyone addressed the fact that this teenage slut should have just kept her legs shut?

I don't think that will prevent birth.

Not gettin' any, huh?

Documented by the New England Journal of Medicine, no less. It is fair for him to admit facts won't change his mind but it is rather chicken shit to continue denying the FACT that these anti abortion scripts are full of medically untrue information. It forces doctors into positions where they have to lie to their patients. That's just wrong.

I am not surprised that Ramen doesn't know that abstience only sex ed or demands that young women make purity pledges is a complete dismal failure which doesn't change teen sexual practices or the age in which they become sexually active one bit. As in no measurable result at all. It is much better to acknowledge reality and provide both real sex ed and access to birth control as THAT actually does reduce teen pregnancy rates and rates of disease transmission. That is a verified and reproducable FACT even if Ramen doesn't like it.

Sane people identify things that work and adjust policy to achieve the best possible average outcome while idiots call young people names and then support policies which result in the exact opposite of what they say they want.

Sluts and whores deserve their babies so they can stay poor and stupid.

Do you doubt that abstinance only doesn't change the age young people become sexually active and only makes their sexual practices more risky? Do you doubt that purity pledges have absolutely no measurable impact upon young people at all? Would you like a link verifying this or were you just posting smilies to say the truth upsets you?